h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I propose that fuelled cars should have a Carbon in CO2 to diamond material press/filter/????/device, so that the CO2 input could be converted to pure Carbon as in Diamonds, and pure O2, benefitting plants, trees, and humans.
Diamonds from CO2
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Yoo.html
[mylodon, Jun 08 2008]
More Diamonds from CO2
http://www.newscien...greenhouse-gas.html
[mylodon, Jun 08 2008]
[link]
|
| |
It would be tough on people who own
diamond mines. |
|
| |
How does it work? Wishful thinking? |
|
| |
Or pure carbon as in graphite might be a little easier. Or just some lampblack? (also primary industry for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, second only to potassium.) And don't plants, trees use CO2? |
|
| |
You used a carbon-based fuel to power your car. The carbon is oxidized into CO2, yielding energy. In order to split the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen, you must put the exact same amount of energy back. No energy is left over for running your car. You are stranded, and searching for even more energy to run your carbon-to-diamonds operation. |
|
| |
Pure O2 is of no benefit to plants and trees. They would get along just fine - be happier, in fact - with little or no oxygen present. |
|
| |
Now [lurch], eliminating oxygen would
leave a nasty hole in the periodic table. |
|
| |
Oooooops - yeah. *Free* oxygen, I should have said. Bound oxygen they would need. |
|
| |
[bungston], tell me - the periodic table sounds so final. Have we no tables based on other puctuations? |
|
| |
//They would get along just fine - be
happier, in fact - with little or no oxygen
present.// |
|
| |
They would indeed get along just fine,
except they'd all die. Plants respire
continuously; they just happen to produce
a net excess of oxygen through
photosynthesis in certain tissues at certain
times. |
|
| |
Thank you, [Max]. One of those things I always thought I knew. When forced to look squarely at the problem, I quickly realized I was completely wrong. A seed cannot perform photosynthesis; it must oxidize sugars and starches for energy. Obvious, right? OK, now I gotta go take inventory of what other things that I "know" that may have been based on this spurious factoid. |
|
| |
As to the idea: maybe I should just say 'less', not 'none'. |
|
| |
[lurch], you are pulling my leg, I hope. |
|
| |
//Have we no tables based on other
puctuations?// |
|
| |
HA! None that I can find after a quick
google search. |
|
| |
Oh, and what [frank] said |
|
| |